Foundationalist theories of justification for science were undermined by the theory-ladeness thesis, which has affinities with coherentist epistemologies. A challenge for defenders of coherentist theories of scientific justification is to specify coherence relations relevant to science and to show how these relations make the truth of their bearers likely. Coherence relations include characteristics that pick out better explanations in the implementation of abductive arguments. Empiricist philosophers have attacked abductive reasoning by claiming that explanatory virtues are pragmatic, having no implications regarding truth. However, empiricist's basic beliefs are subject to the same challenges facing abduction, both of which can be met by citing causally coherent etiologies, which are commonplace in biological explanations, and by demonstrating the relevance of causal coherence to truth.

Corporate social performance (CSP) has become a widely applied concept, discussed in most large firms’ corporate reports and the academic literature alike. Unfortunately, CSP has largely been employed as a way of demonstrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) in practice, or to justify the business case for CSR in academia by relating some measure of CSP to some measure of financial performance. In this article, we discuss multiple shortcomings to these approaches. We argue that (1) CSR activities need to be managed and measured as projects and aggregated to the business or corporate level using a project portfolio; (2) appropriate measures need to be identified that move away from reporting the firm’s activities toward quantifying actual social outcomes achieved; and (3) given the types of projects prevalent in CSR, statistical evaluation methods common in other fields (ideally, pre-test post-test control group designs, such as used in medicine or propensity score matching for ongoing or past projects) should be employed to properly measure outcomes. We make a first, albeit imperfect, attempt at using such an approach with data collected on behalf of the Patrimonio Hoy project, a well-publicized CSR initiative carried out by Cemex in Mexico. We show that the results from this data reinforce concerns voiced earlier in this article.

Hanson claims that moral responsibility should be distributed among both the humans and artifacts comprising complex wholes that produce morally relevant outcomes in the world. I argue that this claim is not sufficiently supported. In particular, adopting a consequentialist understanding of morality does not by itself support the view that the existence of a causally necessary object in such a complex whole is sufficient for assigning moral responsibility to that object. Moreover, there are good reasons, both evolutionary and contemporary, for not adopting this stance.

David Landes is, without any doubt, one of the outstanding contemporary economic historians. In his opus magnum he intends to write about nothing less than “world history”. The major questions he tackles is why some nations are so rich and some so poor. Across continents and countries a huge amount of empirical evidence is mobilized. There emerges one key explanatory perspective: To be rich or to remain poor very much depends on your own efforts, particularly on the promotion of human capital, itself dependent on cultural milieus and social structures. But there is one striking deficiency in this argument: The world as such: its stratification, its interdependencies and dependency structures as well as their impact on the probability of late development do not show up in the argument.

I will consider how the notion of incommensurability, as championed by Parfit (Reasons and persons, 1984), Griffin (Well-being: its meaning, measurement and importance, 1986), Chang (Ethics 112:659–688, 2002), and Hare (Philos Perspect 23:165–176, 2009), might affect both the argument from slight pain (which suggests God’s non-existence can be inferred from the merest stubbing of one’s toe) and Leibniz’s reply to this argument. I conclude that the notion of incommensurability may ultimately strengthen Leibniz’s general position.